Open Mike 27/03/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 27th, 2017 - 105 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

105 comments on “Open Mike 27/03/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Morrissey 1
    27 March 2017 at 6:07 am

    Some people compare our SAS heroes to
    the US Navy SEAL teams. They could be right….

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/

    • gsays 1.1
      27 March 2017 at 7:28 am

      In reference to our SAS, and the ‘botched’ raid, why not have an enquiry?
      Where is the political downside?

      • Cinny 1.1.1
        27 March 2017 at 7:47 am

        How does it go.. nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

        The crafty Defence Force has waited five days to respond and then turn around and say it was the wrong village. How’s their fact checking, seeing they lost the ‘report’?

        Did they wait five days because Parliament was sitting last week and not sitting this week?

        • srylands 1.1.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 7:52 am

          Their fact checking is flawless. This story will be dead in a week.

          • Cinny 1.1.1.1.1
            27 March 2017 at 8:03 am

            Yeah so flawless they lost the report, some said this story would be dead by the end of last week, and yet it is still going.

            An independent investigation would clear up the matter, but the outgoing PM is against that… ask yourself why?

          • SpaceMonkey 1.1.1.1.2
            27 March 2017 at 8:07 am

            This story is not going away. If it is not dealt with in the form of a fully independent inquiry, it will leave a stain on the reputation of our military and NZ as a whole.

            Right now the NZDF and Government are trying to back pedal to a point where they can save some face. To me it is too late for that. They had 7 years to front foot it properly.

            I liked Marianne Elliott on Q+A in the weekend in answer to the accusation that Hit and Run was politically motivated… that what we are dealing with here is a political cover up.

    • J'Accuse 1.2
      27 March 2017 at 11:32 am

      I’m still furious about Key’s final speech. What a lot of ghost-written bollocks ! There are many current horror stories out there of working conditions and parents sacrificing themselves for their kids including tangata whenua, polynesian, hindu, chinese, philipino, tamil among others, reflecting increasing complexity in Aotearoa. Parliament needs to reflect *them*, not just the chattering classes.

  2. Robert Guyton 2
    27 March 2017 at 7:57 am

    “Their fact checking is flawless.”

    Seems it was their “fact checking” that was the problem.

  3. marty mars 3
    27 March 2017 at 8:20 am

    The sea is bumpy

    “The Māori Party has spearheaded a new bill proposing major changes to the governance and administration of the 27,000 titles of Māori land in New Zealand, which equate to 6 percent of the country’s total land mass.

    But its new ally, Mana Party leader Hone Harawira has called the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill “a poisonous and destructive cancer”.”

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/327525/mana-attacks-maori-party-over-'poisonous'-land-bill

  4. saveNZ 4
    27 March 2017 at 9:13 am

    Disapointing comments by Winston. We have one of the highest child abuse and the highest domestic violence abuse… so lets not go backwards…

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/winston-peters-a-dangerous-old-man-sue-bradford.html

    • jcuknz 4.1
      27 March 2017 at 10:49 am

      I guess wisdom comes with age. I experienced [suffered] both sensible and stupid corporal punishment in my youth and it is obvious to me it is a serious lack in the dragging up of children today as evidenced by the events which caused Winston to speak out for the return of discipline.
      But sadly the biggest problem is the pre-dominence of female teachers who are incapable and prefer to deprive children of education rather than a little bit of discipline to show the children what is right and what is wrong in a way to be remembered.

      • saveNZ 4.1.1
        27 March 2017 at 11:09 am

        jcuknz….. pleeeze female teachers are to blame…. maybe the sensible and stupid corporal punishment in your youth did some serious damage to your future intellectual state….

      • Wensleydale 4.1.2
        27 March 2017 at 9:51 pm

        I suggest you retire to the study, Giles. Your dear wife will be along shortly with your pipe and slippers.

  5. Adrian Thornton 5
    27 March 2017 at 9:33 am

    Sue Bradford calling out the Greens and by extension Labour for being neo liberal sacks of shit, and having the type of back bone sacks like that need…
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201838072/what-price-power-former-green-mp-sue-bradford-slams-greens'-deal-with-labour

    • Bill 5.1
      27 March 2017 at 9:59 am

      Not holding back, was she?

      And she’s right. There is no way to be (so-called) fiscally responsible and also be socially responsible. The thing that really gets me about so-called fiscal responsibility is that it’s highly irresponsible – people suffer and people die when ledgers are held up as more important than people.

      I actually think that the ‘business plan’ Gareth Morgan has tabled through TOPs has more to offer struggling people and does more to address imbalances of wealth than anything this straight jacket Labour and the Greens want the country to don can ever achieve.

      Anyway. It’s looking like mana for me. And if that turns out to be a wasted vote, then hey. (I simply won’t vote in favour of getting a kicking)

      • weka 5.1.1
        27 March 2017 at 10:04 am

        Where have Labour or the Greens said that the ledger is more important than people? Shaw was pretty clear that it was the other way round.

        “There is no way to be (so-called) fiscally responsible and also be socially responsible.”

        So people said the other day and when I asked for an explanation of that what I got was lines of ideology. The framing of one vs the other and never the twain shall meet looks like a political stance rather than an absolute truth.

        • Bill 5.1.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 11:26 am

          There was an entire post done just the other day that laid out their ‘fiscally responsible’ position. Y’know? All that b/s around debt being held to 20% of GDP etc?

          I’m at a loss to understand what it is you’re not grasping. There are only two ways governments raise monies to spend on social programmes.

          One way is through taxation. The other is through borrowing.

          Obviously, if debt is being paid down then there’s no borrowing or only very limited borrowing. Meanwhile, revenue from taxation that’s paying down debt isn’t going to social spending.

          In a situation where an economy has slowed, that diversion of a lower tax take to pay down debt is disastrous – it’s a liberal economic prescription that both Labour and the Greens have pledged to adhere to and it’s otherwise known as austerity.

          The non-liberal prescription (the responsible avenue) is to borrow and supplement any tax take and then allocate the monies for various social expenditures. And only pay down debt when the debt to GDP ratio has naturally fallen as the consequence of increased GDP.

          • Bill 5.1.1.1.1
            27 March 2017 at 11:52 am

            In other words, what Labour and the Greens should be saying is that their government will invest in schools and health and whatever infrastructure and services are required for the general welfare of NZ, and that debt will be only be paid down if and when favourable economic conditions prevail.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1
              27 March 2017 at 12:20 pm

              Well thanks for finally putting out an alternative positioning. Doesn’t high debt place us at increasing risk internationally?

              What you appear to be saying is that if we have unfavourable conditions that on the basis of this policy the Greens would throw social services under a bus. I just don’t see the evidence for that (and I’m pretty sure Matthew addressed this issue in the last round).

              The Greens are in favour of increasing govt income via taxation btw.

              • Bill …
                27 March 2017 at 1:04 pm

                In answer to your first question, no.

                On the second point, if monies are being used to pay down debt, then that can only come at the expense of social spending. Yes, given less money, health could be prioritised over roads. But regardless of what you may think of roads, the fact remains that less money is being spent into society in favour of giving that money over to debt repayment.

                Increasing taxation when debt servicing is taking priority doesn’t really do much. If an economy is shrinking then the debt/GDP ration tends to climb no matter how much money is being raised to be thrown at the debt.

    • weka 5.2
      27 March 2017 at 10:14 am

      Just listened and what I heard Bradford saying is that the Greens have sold out… because. She doesn’t actually explain other than to say that business support the policy and that the policy will explicitly mean no social spending, but she doesn’t say how or why. She also says that they (both parties I guess) haven’t made any policy announcements regarding social spending, which I find quite extraordinary given that for the last couple of years the Greens have spoken and acted on this repeatedly.

      At the end she gets a bit better where she makes a comparison with Labour in the 2000s and how they tinkered around the edges with social policy. And I agree there is a danger here for that to happen again, which is why we need the ratio of L to G MPs to be as even as possible so that the Greens have the power to push the govt left. It would be way better if we looked at what Clark’s govt did and compare it to what L/G now are intending and see what is similar and what is different. At the moment I’m just seeing a lot of reaction with little analysis.

      • Carolyn_nth 5.2.1
        27 March 2017 at 10:26 am

        I understand where Bradford is coming from. She didn’t get the opportunity to elaborate. But she is saying the economic agreement signals no change from how the Labour Party operated in 2000-2007: ie tinkering around the edges, and delivering a situation where the Nats, once in power again, can shift things even further rightwards.

        Bradford particularly pointed out the way the latest Labour-Green agreement aims to get business onside as a priority, rather than address the pressing issues for the struggling Kiwis they should be supporting as a priority.

        Also see Stephanie Rodgers on the agreement:

        If we prompt New Zealand voters to think about money first, they aren’t going to think about common good, about ensuring their neighbours have a good life too. They’re going to think “actually, getting another block of cheese each week does sound good” and the right’s fourth term is secured. They don’t even have to work for it, because when we explicitly buy into their values, it weakens our own.

        It cuts out the heart of our politics.

        I think Bradford’s RNZ interview opens the way for the logic of a new left wing party. That may be where her thinking is headed. She tried Mana, so what else is there?

        • Karen 5.2.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 12:12 pm

          I agree with both Sue and Stephanie’s analysis but the answer is not another left-wing party – the answer is to try and influence the leftish parties we have. You don’t have to join them to do that – you can lobby relentlessly with well researched material directed at any of the MPs who may be sympathetic.

          It takes too long to get a party to the stage where it can have a significant political role – Mana tried but IMO made a fatal error getting involved with Kim Dotcom and lost the momentum it had. A huge amount of energy went into Mana and it is hard to keep up the support from volunteers without any sign that they are getting anywhere.

          • Carolyn_nth 5.2.1.1.1
            27 March 2017 at 12:21 pm

            Agree, Karen. But I think that’s maybe where Bradford’s thinking is going. Although, she also does a very good job of holding Labour & the Greens to account.

      • Bill 5.2.2
        27 March 2017 at 11:29 am

        which is why we need the ratio of L to G MPs to be as even as possible so that the Greens have the power to push the govt left

        But the Greens have just signed up to this notion of having debt sit at no more than 20% of GDP. You can’t really get any more non- left than that. (I mean, sure, yo could go for 10% or 5% – but the whole point is that the focus they’re applying to debt is absolutely a right wing focus – liberal)

        • weka 5.2.2.1
          27 March 2017 at 11:57 am

          Even if that were true (and that’s not quite how it was framed in the document), they’re still to the left of every other party in parliament. And that one aspect of what the Greens are doing doesn’t shift their whole kaupapa and policy platform to the right of centre. So having maximum MPs in parliament will give them more chance of moving Labour in the direction of Green Party policy (by all means try and make the argument that GP policy is largely right wing).

          I’m not sure what you expect given that Labour are going to run a neoliberal govt albeit a centre left one. Seriously, since the announcement was made I’ve yet to see a credible alternative presented (haven’t read the CTU one yet). Stephanie had a go by saying that they should have focussed on people not finances, but it still doesn’t address the issue of needing the business community on board to govern, and needing to present as credible to get that chunk of the electorate who vote on credibility over the cluster fuck that has been Labour for the past decade.

          On climate change alone that’s critical, because the only other option is a 4th term NACT govt. Bradford obviously thinks that being liked by the business community is the end of the world. I think it’s just a natural consequence of lefties not voting Green while they were still radical and the Greens now positioning themselves where they can do the most good within the limitations they’re presented with. Personally I think it’s a piece of leftie bullshit to condemn them on this, because they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

          The Greens don’t sit neatly into the left/right box you want to frame them in. They’ll use the tools available to them, but I’m guessing you are looking at the policy within a conventional political framework as well as not looking at it within the broader actions of the Greens.

          • Bill 5.2.2.1.1
            27 March 2017 at 12:16 pm

            I’ve yet to see a credible alternative presented

            It’s been stated, alluded to and presented over and over again. Focus on necessary social investment. Borrow to fund that if necessary.

            Debt levels do not matter. They really don’t. All this nonsense about a need to pay it down is absolute ideological tosh that, if followed through on, inflicts huge amounts of damage on society and people.

            Recent and less recent history is awash with ugly real world examples of what happens when debt repayment takes precedence over social investment.

          • Bill 5.2.2.1.2
            27 March 2017 at 12:52 pm

            Even if that were true (and that’s not quite how it was framed in the document), they’re still to the left of every other party in parliament.

            No they are not.

            And that one aspect of what the Greens are doing doesn’t shift their whole kaupapa and policy platform to the right of centre.

            Yes it does.

            So having maximum MPs in parliament will give them more chance of moving Labour in the direction of Green Party policy (by all means try and make the argument that GP policy is largely right wing).

            All their policies are beholden to or limited by their economic positioning. And that’s unabashedly liberal – something they just ‘officially’ signed up to and crowed about the other day.

            I’m not sure what you expect given that Labour are going to run a neoliberal govt albeit a centre left one. Seriously, since the announcement was made I’ve yet to see a credible alternative presented (haven’t read the CTU one yet).

            See the other reply I made.

            Stephanie had a go by saying that they should have focussed on people not finances, but it still doesn’t address the issue of needing the business community on board to govern, and needing to present as credible to get that chunk of the electorate who vote on credibility over the cluster fuck that has been Labour for the past decade.

            If the belief is that business being on board is more important than people being on board, then they’re lost (and will hopefully sink without a trace soon)

            On climate change alone that’s critical, because the only other option is a 4th term NACT govt. Bradford obviously thinks that being liked by the business community is the end of the world. I think it’s just a natural consequence of lefties not voting Green while they were still radical and the Greens now positioning themselves where they can do the most good within the limitations they’re presented with. Personally I think it’s a piece of leftie bullshit to condemn them on this, because they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

            Some might view your loyalty to ‘the party’ as noble. But blaming voters for a political party’s shortcomings isn’t flash. Neither is any attempt to play some minor fear card (Nat term no. 4) , because that’s usually a precursor to some ultimatum on the need to ‘vote for the lesser evil’ or you’re a part of the problem nonsense.

            The Greens don’t sit neatly into the left/right box you want to frame them in. They’ll use the tools available to them, but I’m guessing you are looking at the policy within a conventional political framework as well as not looking at it within the broader actions of the Greens.

            Left and right are economic concepts. The Greens have announced they will adhere to right wing (liberal) economic demands.

    • marty mars 5.3
      27 March 2017 at 10:21 am

      Strong sue indeed. I, like her, feel like I am lost on who to vote for this year.

      • saveNZ 5.3.1
        27 March 2017 at 10:58 am

        She needs to come back to parliament. Can she and the Greens make up for the greater good of our country?

    • saveNZ 5.4
      27 March 2017 at 10:33 am

      I agree with Sue Bradford with the anti smacking laws, but not on her opinions on the Greens MoU with Labour. The greens should push Labour centre left which is where Labour need to be (but in the right areas).

      I’d also like to see Mana get through. That’s MMP, just as we have the far right ideology from National and ACT we need to have some balance from the far left. What is missing in NZ debate is fresh ideas and how to deal with 21st century issues especially globalism.

      A case in point in the article below. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/327526/firms-look-at-cruise-ship-option-for-akl-rail-link-workers

      A Chinese bidder for the rail link is proposing to possibly house 1000’s of workers in a cruise ship. Previously, infrastructure projects paid for by NZ tax payers would be good, creating local jobs and opportunities, nowadays, infrastructure projects seem to do the opposite with cheaper workers from overseas being bought in to ‘work’, quality questionable (trains full of asbestos), housing and rents escalating with the amount of ‘new’ workers flooding in, more transport issues from the ‘new’ workers and their families seem to be coming too, and their health, education needs being met by local taxpayers and often bankrupting local businesses with the noise and disruption caused by the 6 years of construction around them.

      At the end of the day most of the profits from the infrastructure project go off shore to the parent company. NZ gets little from it and most local people are worse off. Then they ask the local people still employed to stump up more taxes to pay for it all these important infrastructure projects.

      My concerns about Labour and Greens is that are still in denial about the actual real effects on local people under globalism and they still think about it in terms of 20th century globalism. Going rah rah to globalism in the 21st century seems akin to forcing inequality on the local community.

      Personally I think the Chinese would be amenable for these concerns because they look to the long term relationship, not the short term like the Natz.

      Another term of the Natz will be the death for anybody renting, Maori, the environment and hollowing out the middle class further and escalating housing, transport, immigration scams and pollution crisis.

      Politicians need to look around them at the US, UK and what normal people are telling them – the messages that are resonating – because people want free borders and selected immigration, but not some free for all that turns their day to day life into a noise, pollution filled, insecure work, struggle. Politicians need to rethink globalism and do proper accounting both financially and socially – before it leads to more climate change and societal disruption.

      Their obligation should be to their own citizens not global opportunities for the .1% and an ideology that works like a Ponzi scheme.

      • saveNZ 5.4.1
        27 March 2017 at 10:45 am

        They also need to factor in, those local people become more desperate, or who have never had a proper job and now can’t even access welfare. The government war on P for example is a joke!

        We wouldn’t need to be building more prisons and having more police, if society starts to give young people a decent upbringing (not a massive percentage living below the poverty line) and a real job to go to at the end of it!

        And I’m not talking about a minimum waged job on zero hour contracts.

        And angry violent parents who are regularly using ‘reasonable force’ to beat their kids is not going to turn these kids around, quite the opposite.

  6. saveNZ 6
    27 March 2017 at 9:36 am

    Lowering the NZ qualification standards – now some of the graduates don’t even know what subjects were in course they were on after “graduating”..

    Soon the ‘NZ’ brand will be worthless under the Natz… worthless for educational quality, worthless for clean/green worthless for safety

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/327479/indian-graduates-had-'poor-knowledge'-of-courses

  7. joe90 7
    27 March 2017 at 9:41 am

    The sign on the kid’s bike – sell your villas, build roads

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C73UcvBW4AEzJPi.jpg

    Many people were detained today. This is understandable – thieves are so protective of themselves. But all those who can not be detained against corruption. We are millions.

    Alexey Navalny

    Много людей задержали сегодня. Это понятно – воры так защищают себя. Но всех, кто против коррупции задержать нельзя. Нас миллионы.— Alexey Navalny (@navalny) March 26, 2017

    https://twitter.com/navalny/status/846018889905524738

    • joe90 7.1
      27 March 2017 at 11:18 am

      Images.

      On March 26, an anti-corruption action took place across Russia, the reason for which was the investigation of the Anti-Corruption Foundation about Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. On the streets were thousands of people (and in Moscow, apparently, more than ten thousand); Hundreds of them were detained by the police (the majority – again, in Moscow). One of the main features of today’s rallies is how massively they turned out in the regions. “Medusa” shows how anti-corruption actions looked in Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Kirov, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk – and in many other cities.

      google translate

      https://meduza.io/feature/2017/03/27/ot-peterburga-do-vladivostoka-vserossiyskaya-aktsiya-protesta-v-fotografiyah

  8. xanthe 8
    27 March 2017 at 10:08 am

    well this should be interesting , quite a few votes in this for NZF

    http://community.scoop.co.nz/2017/03/nz-first-repeal-of-anti-smacking-law-welcomed/

    • marty mars 8.1
      27 March 2017 at 11:13 am

      Yep still an underbelly of violence in our society. Weak selfish people who are still scared to deal with their own stuff so instead they take it out on children – yuck.

      • xanthe 8.1.1
        27 March 2017 at 11:28 am

        I dont quite understand the point of that marty.
        Are you perhaps suggesting that those who think the anti smacking legislation was bad lawmaking that has not reduced violence against kids, are somhow engaging in or promoting violence against kids?

        Certainly that was a strong campaign theme at the time that was harmful and improper then as it would be now.

        • marty mars 8.1.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 11:44 am

          If someone is a pro smacker and wants the law reversed then imo that is evidence that there is stuff that need to work on in a personal way and they should be given the resources and education to work through that stuff rather than smacking.

          • xanthe 8.1.1.1.1
            27 March 2017 at 12:05 pm

            what about someone who is “anti smacker” and wants the law changed?

            I think you are trying to deny the existence of these people!
            my point is that Winston believes they exist and some of them will vote NZF for no other reason then to say “we exist”

            • McFlock 8.1.1.1.1.1
              27 March 2017 at 12:14 pm

              Wants the law changed to… what?

              • xanthe …
                27 March 2017 at 12:15 pm

                very good question !

                i guess to something that
                1 reduces violence against kids
                2 does not make policepersons judges

                • McFlock …
                  27 March 2017 at 12:17 pm

                  No, I’m literally trying to think of a permutation where someone can be “anti smacking” while supporting a repeal of the anti-smacking law.

                  Seeking to amend it, maybe by adjusting the police discretion, yeah, sure. But repealing it? How is that consistent with being “anti smacking”?

                  • xanthe …
                    27 March 2017 at 12:50 pm

                    Ok I mispoke….i meant to say

                    people who are anti smacking and did not want the law passed and would like to see it repealed.

                    we exist !

                    because its a badly formed law passed by coercive process (coercion is violence too)

            • marty mars 8.1.1.1.1.2
              27 March 2017 at 12:19 pm

              An anti smacker wants the law changed? Tighter do you mean, less loopholes for the loopholes?

              I’d need to see some strong independent evidence if someone was going to suggest the legislation caused MORE violence against children.

    • Bill 8.2
      27 March 2017 at 12:56 pm

      There was and is no ‘anti-smacking’ legislation. There was legislation that removed the defence that was used by some charged with physical assaults on children.

      • xanthe 8.2.1
        27 March 2017 at 1:14 pm

        absolutely correct Bill

        this is what we are discussing
        New section 59 substituted

        Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

        “59 Parental control

        “(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

        “(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

        “(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

        “(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

        “(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

        “(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

        “(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

        “(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

        looking at this my opinion is
        1 the whole thing has been horribly misrepresented (by parties for and against!) and winston is poised to take advantage of that
        2 section 4 is just wrong!

        • McFlock 8.2.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 1:28 pm

          Here’s the main bit of the previous version:

          (1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

          Repealing the act that repealed the above legalises smacking.

      • adam 8.2.2
        27 March 2017 at 1:32 pm

        “There was and is no ‘anti-smacking’ legislation”

        That is why I say people who even use the term anti-smacking just like violence against children. The promote it by the use of the term, and want to perpetuate it by deliberate misleading the public, and debasing the debate.

        It is a argument by some people who have no power, and get their jollies by beating up little children. I really do wish we lived in a society that was beyond that sort of thing.

        But it would appear, that the child beaters want another round of us reminding them that they are, the scum of the earth.

      • xanthe 8.2.3
        27 March 2017 at 2:06 pm

        “There was legislation that removed the defence that was used by some charged with physical assaults on children.”

        that is also my recall that this was prompted by a series of cases where sec 59 was sucessfully used as a defense where children surffered injury.

        1 I have a very dim view of lawmakers and laws that are a response to specific cases
        2 at the time it was also suggested that sec 59 could have been altered somehow thus
        “nothing in sec 1 shall be a defense where physical or mental harm is caused to a child.” Not proposing that as “the solution” just suggesting that that was maby not sufficiently explored.

        But to get back to my first post, It looks like Winston is positioning NZF to collect on the flustercluck that was the passing of this amendment and perhaps continuing to deligitimise , misrepresent , and demonise those who hold a different view on it might not serve “the left” here.

        Oh and just to be completely clear I am personally opposed to any form of violence as a “correction” , which includes much of what happens in our “corrections” services!

  9. Herodotus 9
    27 March 2017 at 10:13 am

    How long can our high waged Auckland economy continue to be able to pay these prices for 366m2 sections ?? Yes $815k starting from !!! Or a 425m2 for $869k
    http://www.realestate.co.nz/3039262
    http://www.realestate.co.nz/3039270
    http://www.realestate.co.nz/3028664
    And No I am not a realestate agent using this has a means of target marketing my properties to all you wealthy land owners at The Std.
    Hate to be The Govt if cards should tumble, and there are signs of tremors being felt in Jafaland.

  10. KJT 10
    27 March 2017 at 10:52 am

    Send troops in to shoot people. People, including civilians, will be shot.

    That is what they do!

    The term “collateral damage” was not invented for fun.

    • xanthe 10.1
      27 March 2017 at 2:19 pm

      Oh are you suggesting this as a solution to the question Herodotus askes above?

      • KJT 10.1.1
        28 March 2017 at 11:35 am

        Note the comment number. Reply to the OP.

        If you send troops in to have a war, or aircraft to bomb a country, innocent people will get shot. I include most soldiers in this also.

        Most are not volunteers!

        The solution is to stop bombing countries just because you cannot drill their oil for free!

        In other words, if you don’t like refugees, stop voting for Governments, including ours, that want to shoot and bomb the crap out of, their countries.

  11. saveNZ 11
    27 March 2017 at 10:57 am

    User pays, spreads to the military as they buy their own boots

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11825410

    • exkiwiforces 11.1
      27 March 2017 at 2:58 pm

      I was buying my own kit back in 90’s, hell we had to buy cam nets for our V8 Landrovers and even had to make our gun mounts for the GPMG’s / LSW C9’s so its not new.

      If we want spare parts for the V8 Landrovers we went to the wreckers yard on Blenheim Rd in CHCH as it was quicker than ordering thru the system.

      Ah, the joys of living in the 90’s not.

      • Wensleydale 11.1.1
        27 March 2017 at 10:04 pm

        Were you reimbursed at all? Because if my employer expected me to fork out for the equipment I use for my job, I’d be presenting him with a bundle of receipts.

        • exkiwiforces 11.1.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 11:53 pm

          Nope, we were joking about it at reunion last Apr in Dunedin when some wag produced a couple of receipts (Doyles Ex Army Supplies in Manchester St I think) and I think we would’ve been wasting our time anyway. Things got real bad when OP Raidan kick off, but’s another story.

          In Oz I can claim any kit that I buy back on tax, but I must admit my Macpac Bivi bag I brought back mids 90’s CHCH is still going strong after all years before Macpac move manufacturing overseas in the late 90s. Can’t knock NZ made goods when you can get it.

      • KJT 11.1.2
        28 March 2017 at 11:37 am

        Agree. If we are going to order soldiers into harms way, then they should have the best gear possible.
        However I do not think we should be ordering them to protect US corporate profits.

        • exkiwiforces 11.1.2.1
          29 March 2017 at 12:40 am

          “If we are going to order soldiers into harms way, then they should have the best gear possible.”

          We are always lending/ loaning the NZDF some of our kit for deployments or even for a bog standard exercise here in Oz either because NZDF has short fall in their SOE, don’t have the equipment full stop or they had to leave it behind as the Aircraft maxed out due to weight issues and hope catches up with on the next flight whenever that might be. Mind you when we come to NZ they loan us their cold weather gear as we don’t get that white stuff called snow in 95% of our training areas here in Oz.

  12. jcuknz 12
    27 March 2017 at 11:01 am

    Why does Winston want a referendum? We had one with an overwhelming result.
    More money wasted on ‘consultation’ when the ‘people’ have spoken against the stupid law.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      27 March 2017 at 3:04 pm

      More money wasted on ‘consultation’ when the ‘people’ have spoken against the stupid law.

      What referendum against what law has the people spoken?

  13. Bearded Git 13
    27 March 2017 at 11:03 am

    Radio NZ just reported that 44% of properties in Auckland were bought by investors in February.

    • Bill 13.1
      27 March 2017 at 11:35 am

      So with that in mind. Apart from TOPs, is anyone else even thinking about shifting tax away from income and on to wealth?

      • weka 13.1.1
        27 March 2017 at 12:05 pm

        The Greens want a capital gains tax, generally but also specifically to address that aspect of the Ak housing crisis. They also want to reduce income tax by using a carbon tax to pay for government spending (can’t remember how that exactly works, you can look it up).

        • saveNZ 13.1.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 5:26 pm

          A capital gains tax is not the answer often their are so many ways for rich people to avoid it. If they really want to tax property they need something that is unrelated to a person’s income tax – more like a stamp duty which is pretty difficult to avoid not matter how rich you are.

          A person that invests millions in property in NZ, does not live here and just never sells would not pay any tax under the capital gains model and that is increasingly what NZ is going to look like with offshore corporates taking over the rental supply. Let alone pretending to live there to avoid it etc etc.

          UK has capital gains taxes, stamp duty, 17.5 VAT and still a massive housing shortage.

          In fact the UK have every tax under the sun apart from a financial transaction tax.

          They subscribe to the foreign investment model of anybody in the world being able to purchase a property in the UK.

          Capital gains is 20th century thinking. They need to switch it up to what is really going on under globalism and why inequality is increasing.

      • AB 13.1.2
        27 March 2017 at 3:38 pm

        Maybe a shift from taxing income from labour to taxing income from capital? Purely taxing wealth you need to be careful about people who are income poor but have wealth due to stupidly inflated asset values such as housing.

        In any case I despair at the way TOP have stupidly discredited the whole idea by wanting to tax people on the value of their own family home, not just their ‘investment’ properties. Only an ex-neoliberal purist like Morgan could do something so unappealing to the public. (It makes me think he may not be so ‘ex’ after all)

        • Bill 13.1.2.1
          27 March 2017 at 4:34 pm

          The tax on the home (that he sees as an investment) would be a given percentage of something like 5% of its value with an initial value exempt from the tax altogether. And (the claim is) that cost would be more than off-set for the vast majority by a concomitant cut in income tax…and phased in over time so people can adjust their circumstances accordingly.

          Now, I don’t think it’s perfect and I agree it might result in a few unfair cases coming to light (big house and no income). But then, what we have now is diabolically unfair to swathes of people who have no room for maneuver.

        • KJT 13.1.2.2
          4 April 2017 at 11:13 am

          The family home cannot be excluded.
          That just makes for a loophole that wealthy people can drive a bus through.
          Ordinary home owners will be better off with TOP’s policy as the housing taxes will be offset by income tax/GST decreases.

    • Johan 13.2
      27 March 2017 at 11:39 am

      To Bearded Git: In your comments when using the term investor, you are including/excluding which groups? eg. people on a visa permit, overseas students, etc

    • ropata 13.3
      27 March 2017 at 12:52 pm

      class war encouraged by 30 years of rogernomics and tax breaks for the rich.
      landlords (not all but many) have been shitting on the poor for ever

      Shamubeel Eaqub: Has anything changed for Generation Rent?

      The statistics are clear: fewer Kiwis are living in their own home – more Kiwis are renting. The home ownership rate has been falling since a peak in the early 1990s and is now at the lowest level since 1946 (using my estimates to update 2013 Census data). There has been no improvement in making houses more affordable. There has been no tangible improvement in renting. In places like Auckland, the average rent is over a quarter of gross income of an average family.

      A doctor writes about how our shitty houses are killing us

      and more
      http://thespinoff.co.nz/media/26-03-2017/the-very-best-of-rent-week-on-the-spinoff/

  14. J'Accuse 14
    27 March 2017 at 11:39 am

    Key’s last speech was a pathetic sob story, which could have been bettered by any number of recent migrant groups.

  15. Anne 15
    27 March 2017 at 11:41 am

    Huh? Haven’t caught up with the fact Micheal Wood is the MP for Mt. Roskill.

    Labour’s Mt Roskill candidate Michael Wood tweeted the bus he was in was stuck in traffic on Hillsborough Rd.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11826058

  16. joe90 16
    27 March 2017 at 11:51 am

    Toys for thugs.

  18. Cinny 18
    27 March 2017 at 12:48 pm

    “Salisbury School, near Nelson, intends to return to court if Education Minister Hekia Parata tries again to close its doors.

    If it goes ahead, it will be the second time the minister has faced Salisbury-related legal action. Parata first attempted to close the school in 2012 but lost in the High Court.”

    Rock on Salisbury School 😀 Proud of you all.

    Salisbury would like parents and educationalists from across New Zealand to come forward with any stories of trying but failing to get a student into the IWS.

    People are asked to email principal@salisbury.school.nz with their situation and contact details.

  19. Cynical jester 19
    27 March 2017 at 1:59 pm

    The baby boomer mafia and winston peters have really sunk to a new low.

    Apparently because I was never given the bash by my parents i should be out robbing dairys because anyone who doesnt get hidings is a sociopath.

    Mental!

    Just like how banning begging gets rid of poverty and kicking people off of benifits doesn’t increase homeless.

    The cradle to the grave generation who pulled the ladder up on every forth coming generation so we couldn’t receive the help they did. … this generation. …

    They say we need to raise the pension age but not till they are all dead….

    Ya own all the homes, never had to havea student loan and now you want us to work an extra two years but not you….

    Oooh wouldn’t they be in for a shock once us millennials realized what a con they’ve played on us.

    We have some of the lowest elderly poverty in the oecd world and highest childhood poverty. Mental.

    Hard to find any common ground witj a generation that thinks greed is good and that everyone needs to harden up and wants to bash the kids.

  20. The Fairy Godmother 20
    27 March 2017 at 2:37 pm

    Paul has a guest post on the Daily Blog today. He is introduced as the bloke who was banned from the Standard for three years for suggesting that left, liberals and progressives should work together to change the government. This is not how I recall it at all. I thought it was more to do with misrepresenting an author. Probably won’t bother going there for a while.

    • McFlock 20.1
      27 March 2017 at 2:54 pm

      lol

      I have a friend who spent some time talking about how happy they were after their breakup, not bovvered at all, yet somehow what the ex was doing always managed to sneak back into the discussion. That somehow seems relevant 🙂

      *they’re better now, I’m pleased to report. It’s a process.

    • xanthe 20.2
      27 March 2017 at 3:17 pm

      a very good post it was too, reccomended reading.

      • weka 20.2.1
        28 March 2017 at 3:07 pm

        Pity him or Bradbury had to lie about ts then, although the irony of the lie is pretty funny.

  21. saveNZ 21
    27 March 2017 at 5:11 pm

    Just got an email from the greens relating to donating.

    The scary stuff was that just renting a prime bill board now costs $1,200, per month!

    First Key didn’t want us to be tenants in our own country.

    Now many can’t afford to be tenants in our own country.

    Now it seems like people can’t even afford to rent a billboard in our own country!

    Meanwhile Bill English is fine with some people stealing water from our own country.

    WTF????

  22. xanthe 22
    27 March 2017 at 5:18 pm

    Who are Concept Consultants?

    I am seriously annoyed with them, they are the enemy of New Zealanders,

    this is their third hit on renewable energy , They are dishonest spindoctor scum

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201838077/report-electricity-technology-will-harm-the-poor

    • ianmac 22.1
      27 March 2017 at 6:52 pm

      It will be odd for those who get serious about fully insulating their homes in order to conserve energy, and install solar water heating. Their drop in electricity use will be penalised by having to pay much more for electricity. So the best action for Electricity Suppliers is for us to use heaps of power, leave the windows open, tear out insulation, have long showers and pay huge power bills.

      Of course the more people who use solar energy the longer the power delivery system would have before paying for upgrades. Surely?

      • Xanthe 22.1.1
        27 March 2017 at 8:54 pm

        But this is the free market mate, its more efficient this way /sarc

        I think that its the owners (overseas fund managers) of our transmission network protecting their (not ours) investment. but hey we need investment. dont we?

        • Antoine 22.1.1.1
          27 March 2017 at 11:18 pm

          > I think that its the owners (overseas fund managers) of our transmission network protecting their (not ours) investment

          Nope

          • Xanthe 22.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2017 at 9:09 am

            antoine go to their website and look at the bio,s of these people. They got us into this mess in the first place. We have a revolvind door industry executivepolicy advisors situation here. what they are doing is immoral and anti democratic. Their “reports” are not intended to inform at all but to influence policy for their personal and sector profit.

            • Antoine 22.1.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2017 at 11:39 am

              Hmm

              I went to the website and had a look at them

              Which one do you think is the most dodgy?

      • Antoine 22.1.2
        27 March 2017 at 11:18 pm

        > So the best action for Electricity Suppliers is for us to use heaps of power

        That’s right, you can’t expect an old style electricity supplier to encourage you to use less power (Although some of them actally do)

        > Of course the more people who use solar energy the longer the power delivery system would have before paying for upgrades. Surely?

        No, solar on its own won’t delay upgrades to the power network, because the sun doesnt shine at the times when we need power most. Solar + battery is another matter.

        A.

    • Wensleydale 22.2
      27 March 2017 at 10:12 pm

      I love how they’ve mastered the art of feigning concern for the poor. “This new electricity technology will harm poor people… the very same people we don’t give a toss about for 364 days of the year, but today, and because we’re being paid a lot of money, please join us in doing a terrible job of pretending to feel sympathy for the less fortunate. Thank you.”

      • Sabine 22.2.1
        28 March 2017 at 11:50 am

        Yep the poor people that are being gauged with line costs in rural areas.

        Oh yeah, the poor people that run on glow bug.

        oh yeah, the poor people that simply gave up on electricity and cook on a barbie and have candles.

    • Antoine 22.3
      27 March 2017 at 11:16 pm

      They are these guys, http://www.concept.co.nz/.

      I had a look at it. No, it’s not a hit on renewable energy. It’s pointing out some problems with the way electricity is priced. For instance, if someone had an electric car, there’s not enough incentive for them to charge it overnight (as opposed to evening when the demand for power is highest).

      A.

  23. Ovid 23
    27 March 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Canada to legalise cannabis.

    Aside from a couple of times in uni I’ve never touched the stuff but this is eminently sensible. I really do think NZ should follow suit.

    • Sabine 23.1
      28 March 2017 at 11:55 am

      in my new home, we had a holiday home rented by out of townees for a week.
      the first night they were at said property they started a fire, at 4.30 am the alarm goes of, and Mr. Voluntary Firefighter drives of screeching tires into the night.
      Several hours later he comes back with the news that hey could not save the house, but managed to save the property next door, that there is a report of two people missing and they were hoping that ones it was save to go into the wreck they would not find these two guys and their dogs. – they did not in the end to the relieve of everyone.

      Figures the fire was lit deliberately, the guys were cooking meth, somehow a fire started and they could not stop it (fire extinguisher near by the initial burn site), so they started a fire in each room and ran away.

      Two days later a big headline in the local rural paper….Coppers found a dozen of marijuana plants and took them off the market ohmygosh the war on certain drugs is working. !!!!!!!!!!

      Priorities. We surely have them.